NZXplorer MCP Server

get_company_directorships

Retrieve complete directorship history for any person from the NZ Companies Register, covering current and past roles in NZX-listed and private companies with status and failure rate analysis.

Instructions

Get full directorship history for any person from the NZ Companies Register. Shows all company roles (NZX-listed + private companies), current and historical, with company status (active/struck off/liquidating) and failure rate analysis. Use when asked about a person's full board network, private company roles, directorship workload, or company failure history.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "slug": "<slug>"
    },
    "name": "get_company_directorships"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`slug`	Yes	Person slug from shared.people (e.g. 'rob-campbell', 'joan-withers')

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.36.0Jun 25, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read operation ('Get... Shows...') and describes the output scope (status, failure analysis). However, it does not mention authentication needs, rate limits, or whether data is paginated, leaving some gaps for a tool with no annotation support.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two concise sentences: first states purpose and scope, second provides usage guidance. No redundant information, and the key information is front-loaded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the low complexity (one required param, no output schema), the description covers what the tool does, what data it shows, and when to use it. It lacks explicit mention of return format or pagination, but for a simple lookup tool, this is nearly complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The single parameter 'slug' is already described in the schema (100% coverage). The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema example, so it meets the baseline of 3.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses specific verbs ('Get full directorship history') and clearly identifies the resource ('any person from the NZ Companies Register'), including scope ('all company roles, current and historical') and unique value ('failure rate analysis'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_director or get_director_workload.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly states when to use: 'when asked about a person's full board network, private company roles, directorship workload, or company failure history.' It does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives, but the provided use cases are clear and relevant.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server